I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity

As Straggler keeps saying, the same way we detect natural.I think you are expecting more proof to show something is "supernatural" than you are in order to show that something is "natural."Or, do you not think that we've shown anything to be natural, either?
That is the only way I can see that your position makes sense. And, if this is the case, then calling anything "natural" or "supernatural" doesn't make any sense anyway... the terms would then be useless.-----------We say that something is natural if we can find enough information out about it that explains how it came about without breaking any theories we have already learned.We would then say that something is supernatural if we can find enough information out about it that explains how it specifically breaks a theory (or multiple theories) we have already learned and there does not seem to be any consistent way to just update the theory that is being broken to account for the new information.-we never stop learning or gathering more information about either situation
-we never actually get "proof" that something is natural or supernatural... that's not how scientific investigation works. Scientific investigation creates theories (guesses that are consistent with all the information we have about the scenario), not proofs.
-it is quite possible that a particular idea may be deemed "natural" and then later be deemed "supernatural" or the other way around, even multiple times... depending on what new information is gathered in the future.I don't see how any of what I just described goes against anything currently understood about practicing science.
Neither does it stop learning or gathering new information in any way at all.
Also, it allows us to get closer to "the truth" by refusing to allow the label of "supernatural" simply because someone doesn't like itIt would just be how we "follow the evidence wherever it leads..."
But, of course, you have to be willing to let go of your pre-conceived ideas in order to do that.

I wouldn't say that. I think he's too polite to be a troll. I think he's just very persistent, and sometimes gets locked in on asking the same questions... which can add difficulty to moving a discussion forward. I do that too, it's a defense mechanism for being frustrated (or, at least it is when I do it). What's wrong with the definitions I provided in that same post? I'll put them here again:

quote:

---

We say that something is natural if we can find enough information out about it that explains how it came about without breaking any theories we have already learned.

​

We would then say that something is supernatural if we can find enough information out about it that explains how it specifically breaks a theory (or multiple theories) we have already learned and there does not seem to be any consistent way to just update the theory that is being broken to account for the new information.

---

Couldn't something like that be used to help us differentiate between what is commonly known as "natural" and "supernatural?" True.
But we know that water doesn't simply turn into wine.
In fact, we know that water turning into wine actually breaks some known theories about water.
Also, we can't think of a way to consistently re-define those theories about water that would take this event into account and still be useful in explaining all the other things we know about water.I think you agree it would be dishonest of us to put such a thing in the "natural" folder. (You think we should put it in the "unexplained" folder, right?)Personally... I think everything should always stay in the "unexplained" folder. Otherwise we could miss something. Like you mention, it could cause us to stop learning about the scenario. Even when something is in the "natural" folder... like evolution... I don't think you would have a problem agreeing that it is still in the "unexplained" folder so much that we are still learning and uncovering things about evolution.Therefore, I think it should actually go into the "supernatural" folder (as defined above). And, as with things in the "natural" folder... we continue to try and find out more about the scenario because it's still also in the "unexplained" folder and we like to do us some learnin'.Putting this in the "supernatural" folder over just the "unexplained" folder adds a few things:
-we have gained a system of classification, this may be a whole new aspect of the universe we never knew about before!
-the process may well have been supernatural (maybe GOD did it, or maybe Supernatural Sam did it). If so... then we have it in the right folder instead of it being forever-chained to the content-less "unexplained" folder.
-we can falsify this supernatural idea by actually uncovering a natural method (this would increase our knowledge about our theories on water) I agree.
That's why my definition of supernatural includes identifying specific theories that are ignored or broken. This must be identified so that we know exactly where we should focus our search for new information.-Maybe our "natural" theories can be expanded to include this scenario one day... in which case, putting it in the supernatural folder and identifying exactly what we needed to look at was very helpful.-Maybe we will never identify how it could happen naturally, and maybe we'll even one day meet up with Supernatural Sam. If so, maybe we could convince him to set up water flowing around in a motored tube where half is water and half is wine. We could then continuously monitor the point where the conversion happens to see what's going on.
-Maybe "what's going on" is that Supernatural Sam is just changing the molecules from water into wine at a specific time and place in space. Just because he is capable of creating and destroying matter anytime he wants to.

Exactly.
As long as those hypotheses can be formed and tested... the results are scientific.
Therefore, it's quite possible to have a supernatural event be deemed such using the scientific method.Will we ever know it to be supernatural?
No.But, in science, we never "know" anything.
In this manner, we also don't know if anything is even natural.
We don't even know if evolution occurs. (If we're going to get all technical about "knowing" things in this way).Can we scientifically know that an event was supernatural? Absolutely.
Can that knowledge be overturned in the future given new information? Of course... just as everything we know scientifically can be overturned by new information.We just deem things to be a certain way that is consistent with all the information we've gathered.I think there is some confusion in this thread about knowing something absolutely and knowing something scientifically.
The power of knowing things scientifically comes when we understand that we don't know anything absolutely, 'cause we're just some dumb humans... therefore scientific knowledge is the only one that really matters (to us) and becomes increasingly important.

It would be like scaffolding... something used in the beginning to help create a bigger, stronger, more precise structure. I don't think you understand the argument.UG couldn't possibly use the same argument I'm putting forward.
Lightening didn't break any previous theories UG had about clouds or air or electricity.
UG didn't have any previous theories.Therefore, UG couldn't possibly use the two definitions I provided. Certainly not in the same way I'm intending.It is not sloppy thinking, it's scientific thinking.And it does provide additional information... the information that this event defies currently known natural theories, but we may not need to update those theories... because this occurrence is supernatural.

I accept that you think this. You've stated equivalent quotes many times in this thread.
And you're absolutely right.The issue you don't seem to understand is that this is a good thing. This is what science relies on and how it moves forward.Maybe I misunderstood how you were trying to use UG in your last post.
You could interpret your statements about UG and show that UG is doing science as well.Of course those definitions rely on my inability to understand what happened.
That's how all scientific definitions begin. Each and every single one.
That's why we assign definitions in science... as an attempt to understand. If we already understood it... there would be no need to define it (it would already be done).If we said we "absolutely understood" we would not be doing science. We would be engaging in religious dogma.The entire field of science is about foraging into areas where we have an inability to understand things.
Then we make a guess.
Then we test and attempt to falsify that guess.
...this process never ends, for anything.
...this process demands that we assign cause (guess) based solely on our inability to understand what happened in whatever situation we're trying to decipher.If we understood the situation... we wouldn't need to guess... and then we wouldn't need science.
Science is used as a tool to help us learn more about situations that we currently have "an inability to understand."
That's how it works.This same exact process is what we do with all scientific theories.
This same exact process is what I'm proposing to do with the label "supernatural."
All you have to do is be willing to follow the evidence.You seem to take the strength of science (guessing with continued testing and verification for things we do not understand), and imply that it is a weakness in this situation... when the exact same tools and methods are used in the rest of science all the time, for every single scientific theory in existence.

Your statement is true on it's own, but very misleading as it doesn't take into account the rest of the post.Your statement is only true when that is the end of investigation. And I agree. If UG says "sky gods" and stops, then he's not doing science. If Darwin said "evolution" and stopped, then he wasn't doing science. If I said "supernatural" and stopped, then I'm not doing science.But this isn't what I'm talking about. That's why I keep adding things after the label... I don't stop there. The statement above alone is not science. But, the statement is part of the scientific method... and it is science if you continue to do the rest of the required actions. But if it's not the end, then it's a part of the scientific method. Like this:UG sees lightning.
UG doesn't know what happened.
UG thinks up a consistent theory with existing information... fire comes from sky Gods.
UG assigns a word "fire-streak."
UG continues to gather information and attempts to falsify his position.What's not scientific about that?
Where is the dead end?Darwin sees finches.
Darwin doesn't know what happened.
Darwin thinks up a consistent theory with existing information... common descent with modification.
Darwin assigns a word "evolution"
Darwin continues to gather information and attempts to falsify his position.What's not scientific about that?
Where is the dead end?I see a wine-river.
I don't know what happened.
I think up a consistent theory with existing information... events that go beyond what is commonly understood as "natural"
I assign a word "supernatural"
I continue to gather information and attempt to falsify my position.What's not scientific about that?
Where is the dead end?It's all the same.
It's all science.
Different times, different ideas, different levels of "existing information"... but that is irrelevant to the practice of science.
All science has to start somewhere. That beginning, whether it is the beginning of science altogether or just the beginning of a new field, will have a low amount of initial information. That's how science works, you start... but you don't stop. As long as you stick to the method, and don't stop... then you're doing science.What is different from the method I'm going with in the wine-river example and what Darwin did with evolution?
They look like exactly the same method to me.I agree with you that if you stop... then you're not doing science. But I'm not advocating stopping at all. I'm advocating the exact opposite... continued investigation.UG got a lot wrong, but if he continues investigation and hypothesis-falsification, then he's doing science.
Darwin got a lot wrong, but he continued investigating and hypothesis-falsification, so he did stick to science.
I might have something wrong too, but if I continue investigating and hypothesis-falsification, then I'm doing science.Being wrong is an incredibly huge part of doing science. It's kind of the backbone.
But that's okay, it doesn't matter... as long as you keep following the method and don't stop... you're doing science.

Fair enough.

My definitions:

quote:

---

We say that something is natural if we can find enough information out about it that explains how it came about without breaking any theories we have already learned.

​

We would then say that something is supernatural if we can find enough information out about it that explains how it specifically breaks a theory (or multiple theories) we have already learned and there does not seem to be any consistent way to just update the theory that is being broken to account for the new information.

---

I would say that Einstein's theory updated Newton's theory just fine.What I was thinking of was more along the lines of changing the theory so that it makes sense and accounts for all observations.
Einstein's theory makes sense... and it accounts for all observations, past and present. No strange anomalies.
Not so much "updating Newton's theory" as it is "updating our theories about physics."(Aside: I don't think this is what you mean... but I think you do actually know that Einstein's theories are Newton's theories... just updated a little? They just have a few extra terms, anyway. For example: If the size and mass is large enough, the extra terms in Einstein's equations drop out and you're left with... exactly Newton's equations.)However, getting back to the river-of-wine example... there's no way to make a theory that includes this observation, and all past observations about water... and have it make any sense.It would be like "the regular theory of water, with molecules acting as they should... except this one time when they all turned into wine.."
The theory doesn't make any sense and cannot be worded in such a way to account for all the information in an elegant manner.Maybe there's something about water-turning-into-wine that we didn't understand before, and we can learn about it, and then update our theories and this would then be a "natural" thing.Or maybe not. Maybe all our studying shows us that this is impossible, and that it can't be explained with any of our theories... this would then leave it as "supernatural."Studying, as always, would continue in either scenario.

The context was "impossible according to the theories we have been able to discover so far" not "impossible to occur at all." Never. Probably shit science until further study could confirm or deny.But what does any of that have to do with the hypothetical scenario we're discussing?
If the hypothetical scenario we're discussing actually happened... I would call it "good science" to call the event supernatural, and "shit science" to not acknowledge such a label. Shouldn't that depend on what the conditions actually are?
I'm not advocating any unbreakable laws. I'm advocating following the evidence.If the world of Harry Potter was our world... at what point do you say "supernatural exists" and stop ignoring all the stuff going on right in front of your face? This is what we're talking about. If it can happen, all the time, in front of our faces... would you be willing to acknowledge it? Or would you be unwilling to follow the evidence? What criteria do you use to declare any event "natural" as a matter of fact? Or do you not do that either?
I'm merely saying we should use the same standard to call something "natural" or "supernatural" depending on where the evidence leads us. Why do you want to treat the two so differently?You do understand that we can't actually prove that anything is "natural" either, don't you? How would you do that?Before calling something supernatural... you want to prove that there isn't some natural solution for it?
How is that different from calling something natural before proving that there isn't some supernatural solution for it?
That's shit science.Science depends on the evidence, following it where it leads, and working from inference on previous knowledge.
But... what if something contradicts previous knowledge that can be tested?
What if our previous knowledge continues to test positive... but this new thing can contradict it at any time, say... depending on someone's will? And you can test this all you like, but it continues to happen simply according to their will?
What do you do then? Why would repeatable, verifiable evidence such as this not merit labelling something "supernatural" rather than "natural?"No one's saying to stop looking.
No one's saying the label isn't as tentative as all labels in science.
Why do you refuse to follow the evidence?The best you can do is study as much as you can and imagine up some labels and put things where they fit as best you can. That's all science has ever done. That's all I'm advocating for this hypothetical "supernatural." Of course, if it happened and can be verified (in the example, anyway). I would follow the evidence wherever it leads. It sounds like you would dogmatically refuse to follow the evidence. Which of us is doing "shit science?"

If you simply want to rule it out by definition, you could have said so earlier.
There's not much to discuss after that.If such things actually did happen, then the definition of science would necessarily change to "the study of the actual world." Which would then include natural and supernatural. Just 'cause there's nothing in our world that is supernatural doesn't mean we can't think of hypothetical situations.The point is to think hypothetically and see where things would lead us if such "magical acts" actually did happen. Then it should be easy to point out what's wrong with the following.
Neither you nor jar nor anyone has been able to point out what the actual "shit science" is. You seem to simply stop at the word "supernatural" and refuse to actually think about the concept. Definitional issues are boring, we can change the word to something else you may prefer, if you'd like. Would you prefer "the-totally-natural-occurance-of-when-normal-natural-laws-are-temporarily-superceded-but-there's-nothing-supernatural-going-on?" So, what's wrong with the above?
Where's the bad science? When did science stop? Then you'd be un-correctably wrong.
The world of Harry Potter is defined to have supernatural aspects. And you would then cease to practice science.If you refuse to follow the evidence, you end up being un-correctably wrong and that's the exact point when you stop doing science.If you always continue to follow the evidence, you may be temporarily wrong, but you'll always be doing science and moving forward.
Science doesn't care what you label things, it cares about the evidence and where it leads.If your only issue is with the term "supernatural" then the definitional/semantic quibbling is your own problem to deal with, not science's.

I'll ask again: What is your definition of a "natural" explanation?
How do you know that something is natural? I put some differentiating definitions forward back in Message 319.You still haven't said why these couldn't be used. You just said you don't understand how they could be used.What if we altered them a little bit? We say that something is natural if no matter is created or destroyed.
We would then say that something is supernatural if we can identify that some matter was created or destroyed.This way a running river would be natural.
A river turning into wine would be unknown.
A river turning into wine where we could also identify the creation of wine molecules or the destruction of water molecules would be supernatural.Do you think we could use those definitions?Edited by Stile, : Because... your face! And because I didn't clean it up enough before submitting. But mostly your face!

Here you're just using the word "natural" to mean "occurs in the universe."
Such a definition is rather useless as it describes everything.I am not attempting to introduce the word "supernatural" to mean "does not occur in the universe" as Jon and jar seem to insist that this is the only possible definition.I am trying to limit the term natural to things that occur "on their own."
And then use the world "supernatural" to describe a specific exception to what would have happened if "left on it's own."Think of a normal rose vs. a rose arts-and-crafts project created out of felt.
One can be described as a "natural flower" where the other can be described as an "artificial flower."Everyone knows that the word "artificial" doesn't mean "does not occur in our universe" even though it is used to differentiate itself from a "natural flower." In the sense Jon and jar and speaking of... both are "natural flowers" and no one should ever indicate a felt rose as an "artificial flower." This sort of argument is obviously deeply flawed.I am attempting to use the word "supernatural" in a similar vein.
The word "supernatural" (as I'm trying to describe it) doesn't mean "does not occur in our universe" even though it could be used to differentiate a certain event from a "natural event."

Really?

quote:

---

We say that something is natural if no matter is created or destroyed.
We would then say that something is supernatural if we can identify that some matter was created or destroyed.

---

You don't think the creation or destruction of matter would be worth distinguishing?Seems sort of big, to me.

Sorry, yes, that was a recent change to try and make things more direct/tangible. I thought we mentioned this already?
Seems like you've gone back to defining "natural" as "occurs in the universe."
This goes back to the natural flower vs. artificial flower example.Is there nothing "artificial" about felt flowers, then? But artificial flowers are quite possible and very common in this world... yet we still have the distinction between natural things and artificial things and everyone understands what the difference is.Why can't we have a similar distinction with natural things vs. supernatural things using the creation/destruction of matter as a point of difference?

Because it is a distinction we can make and science is all about classifying distinctions we can make.Why would a flower created out of felt be "artificial?" Felt is a perfectly real and natural part of this world.We have natural flowers (involving biological organisms).
We have artificial flowers (not involving biological organisms).Both, however, are "natural" in the sense you're talking about.
Therefore, if we stick to the word "natural" in the sense you're using it... then there is no such thing as artificial flowers? And anyone that calls something an "artificial flower" when it's not biological is horribly abusing science? That's deeply flawed.Of course artificial flowers exist and of course it's perfectly scientific to acknowledge them. We make the distinction simply because we can and we like to classify things into nice, neat divisions.I'm simply continuing in the same vein (hypothetically):We have natural wine making (not involving the creation/destruction of matter).
We have supernatural wine making (involving the creation/destruction of matter).Both, however, are "natural" in the sense you're talking about.
Therefore, I understand why you're simply claiming that anything supernatural doesn't exist.I don't, however, understand how you can be okay with natural vs. artificial flowers based on biological life but not be okay with natural vs. supernatural wine based on the creation/destruction of matter.